I do value differences of opinion, it makes the world a wonderful place.
Why would I know why poker would be rigged anymore than why would a person start smoking cigarettes, break the speed limit, or be driving over the legal limit.
You can observe it and see it when it is around you. You can smell the drunk person, you can see the car fly by you, and one can see the cigarette smoke.
Are we blind to the hand combinations we see? We have seen so many crap cards at the online tables that there does not need to be a bad beat for the next 5 years for the crap we all see online in one year. I assume it is to make a buck or save time which the two are interchangeable.
The velocity of money is another reason one would want to 'rig' poker. Two people play $100 vs $100. If I am the house, I do not want $4 rake and one person leave a winner and another player go home the loser. I will program the software to keep both players in the game, so I can get $50 rake from both players. And keep telling them, that player sitting across from you is taking your money. No, the house has $100 of your guy's money, and it was not dealt any cards. Almost like playing cards with Uncle Sam who happens to have my FullTilt money as I speak.
Again, we want our cigarettes, we want our fast car, we want the alcohol even though we drive over the limit, and we want our poker. Is there a problem officer?
You: Comparing online poker to slot machines is not accurate.
Me: I think they are both used to make money for the company.
You: The chips/points/money payout with poker is from the other players.
Me: I agree. The house keeps a share.
You: The chips/points/money payout is from the house with the assigned percentages paying out.
Me: Unless the house has added to the payouts, all of it is paid out from losing players funds.
You: The house wins every hand because they take a rake, they don't care if player 1 vs 2 or 3-9 wins the pot, they just want their rake.
Me: Do they want $4 rake or $50 rake, software can be used to assist goal.
You: Now to say that they skew the software to pay out more to one player or another, I agree it is possible, but again why?
Me: Then there would have been no need for superaccounts, huh? But they were created. Obviously the benefits outweighed the risk of being found out.
You: The age old argument for creating action to create more rake, again is possible but I personally don't see the net benefit.
Me: Because you do not see the benefit does not make it not so. I would as a company rather see $4 rake generated than $50. Oops, that would be giving away the store, I would as a company rather see $50 rake generated than $4.
You: there is enough pots creating max rake that it would not be a huge benefit for the risk to reputation.
Me: Myth. There are not enough pots to generate the desired raked. Use software to assist my rake accumulation.
I just see so many opposites in our ideas. But poker is the same, I believe my all in can beat your all in. Sometimes my all in takes you. And sometimes your all in takes me, so the correct answer is probably, some of what you say and some of what I say is correct. But we both have less funds added together remaining after trying to prove our point. I do not have your $100 and you do not have my $100. One of us walked away with $0, the other walked away a winner with $95, and we are left guessing where the other $105 went. Cool discussion BeerDog.
Two last comments. If a person is concerned about rake, they should not be playing poker.
Second, code cannot control one condition. A player doing an all in and everyone folds to that player. That player will win that hand. Software cannot do a thing about it, except maybe lose the internet connection. Hence, a lot of my play is all in or fold. I would prefer everyone folding to my allin than being called anyday.
Why would I know why poker would be rigged anymore than why would a person start smoking cigarettes, break the speed limit, or be driving over the legal limit.
You can observe it and see it when it is around you. You can smell the drunk person, you can see the car fly by you, and one can see the cigarette smoke.
Are we blind to the hand combinations we see? We have seen so many crap cards at the online tables that there does not need to be a bad beat for the next 5 years for the crap we all see online in one year. I assume it is to make a buck or save time which the two are interchangeable.
The velocity of money is another reason one would want to 'rig' poker. Two people play $100 vs $100. If I am the house, I do not want $4 rake and one person leave a winner and another player go home the loser. I will program the software to keep both players in the game, so I can get $50 rake from both players. And keep telling them, that player sitting across from you is taking your money. No, the house has $100 of your guy's money, and it was not dealt any cards. Almost like playing cards with Uncle Sam who happens to have my FullTilt money as I speak.
Again, we want our cigarettes, we want our fast car, we want the alcohol even though we drive over the limit, and we want our poker. Is there a problem officer?
You: Comparing online poker to slot machines is not accurate.
Me: I think they are both used to make money for the company.
You: The chips/points/money payout with poker is from the other players.
Me: I agree. The house keeps a share.
You: The chips/points/money payout is from the house with the assigned percentages paying out.
Me: Unless the house has added to the payouts, all of it is paid out from losing players funds.
You: The house wins every hand because they take a rake, they don't care if player 1 vs 2 or 3-9 wins the pot, they just want their rake.
Me: Do they want $4 rake or $50 rake, software can be used to assist goal.
You: Now to say that they skew the software to pay out more to one player or another, I agree it is possible, but again why?
Me: Then there would have been no need for superaccounts, huh? But they were created. Obviously the benefits outweighed the risk of being found out.
You: The age old argument for creating action to create more rake, again is possible but I personally don't see the net benefit.
Me: Because you do not see the benefit does not make it not so. I would as a company rather see $4 rake generated than $50. Oops, that would be giving away the store, I would as a company rather see $50 rake generated than $4.
You: there is enough pots creating max rake that it would not be a huge benefit for the risk to reputation.
Me: Myth. There are not enough pots to generate the desired raked. Use software to assist my rake accumulation.
I just see so many opposites in our ideas. But poker is the same, I believe my all in can beat your all in. Sometimes my all in takes you. And sometimes your all in takes me, so the correct answer is probably, some of what you say and some of what I say is correct. But we both have less funds added together remaining after trying to prove our point. I do not have your $100 and you do not have my $100. One of us walked away with $0, the other walked away a winner with $95, and we are left guessing where the other $105 went. Cool discussion BeerDog.
Two last comments. If a person is concerned about rake, they should not be playing poker.
Second, code cannot control one condition. A player doing an all in and everyone folds to that player. That player will win that hand. Software cannot do a thing about it, except maybe lose the internet connection. Hence, a lot of my play is all in or fold. I would prefer everyone folding to my allin than being called anyday.
. And we all see bad players who have been rewarded for dishing out the bad beat. I saw an 8 4 win the other day, off suit. In the beginning of a game. It's like what is this a bluff? to an AJ and an A4 pops on the flop. The turn 8, river 8. It's like I am glad I did not go in that hand with my A10.
My standby when I was in college. Hell, this is still my standby... 
